Does it strike anyone as odd that everyone supports the American colonists (owned slaves) yet daemonise the confederate...

Does it strike anyone as odd that everyone supports the American colonists (owned slaves) yet daemonise the confederate soldiers in the American Civil War? Isn't that a wee bit hypocritical, Americans?

Other urls found in this thread:

civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

There's almost a century between those two wars.

Sure, but other civilised nations had done away with slavery earlier than the American Revolution.

Not British Empire though.

That's the great hypocrisy of the American Revolution. Advocating for the freedom and equality of all men and yet still keeping the institution of slavery.

As someone else in the thread said, there was nearly a century between the events and the abolition movement in America was rather large and very, very vocal.

I didn't realise the revolution happened in 1733.

The American Revolution was an alliance of very disparate cultural regions that coalesced into the North and the South after they were united and slavery became the dividing issue. The South was mostly only important in the revolution for colonial unity and the capital it provided.

New England was largely opposed to slavery on religious grounds already and PA had an active abolitionist movement preceding the revolution.

The fuck are you talking about? I said
>There's almost a century between those two wars
What does the Abolition Act of 1833 have to do with this?

>the abolition movement in America was rather large
Uh, no. They were a tiny minority before and for the vast majority of the war.

The American revolution was a war between two sides that owned slaves, just like the majority of wars in western history prior to the 19th century.

The American Civil war was a war where one side opposed slavery and the other side clung to their morally unjustifiable position despite the fact virtually every other western state on earth had out phased slavey.

It's a bit unfair to demonise the confederate soldiers though, since most of them just wanted to protect their homes from northern white-nigger catholics and legitimately believed that the slaves were going to replace them in their society if they lost the war.

I've never seen confederate soldiers demonized.

It's a new thing. In most movies and fiction prior to eighties they were the noble heroes fighting for a lost cause.

It's completely hypocritical.

It's the hypocrisy central to America's identity.

>Fuck you we're independent!
>Fuck you we're making our own country!
>Fuck you you can't be independent!
>Fuck you you can't make your own country!

My fellow burgers, we're a buncha hypocrites.

Really took off in 2015 thanks to that fag Dylann Roof.

All the more reason why we need to destroy the fucking Union once and for all now, before the Northern parasites wipe out what's left of our identity.

In a cruel kind of way, I do secretly look forward to America becoming embroiled in another war it can't possibly win. It brings us one step closer to destroying the vile and despicable beast known as the United States government.

Hopefully, this current shitfest with Russian blows up in the Yankees' faces and a few hundred million of them get glassed.

So? Yeah history is fucked up, every country has done shitty things. Maybe stop being such a glass half empty faggot and focus on the good stuff once and a while. The Bill of Rights was pretty neat right?

The Confederates were fighting specifically to own slaves while the colonist were not, so its a false equivalency

The difference is, while there was slavery in the colonies, it wasn't universally accepted, and
There was fairly vigorous debate around it. In contrast, slavery was the central justification for the souths succession.

They needed the southern states if they were going to break free.

You might say "you should never compromise on abolishing slavery", but in the real world you will get eaten alive if you don't respect the balance of power, no matter how unjust it is. Then there will be 1 less person who at least cares about abolishing slavery even if they can't do much about it.

>The Confederates were fighting specifically to own slaves
That's not true. They were just fighting for their homeland. The huge majority of people in the south couldn't even own slaves since they were too poor. Many of them were in favor of abolishing slavery, too, like Lee and Jackson, who decided to fight for the confederacy simply because Virginia joined it.

>They were just fighting for their homeland.

yeah, their homeland to keep slaves

>The huge majority of people in the south couldn't even own slaves since they were too poor

Something like ~33% of households in the antebellum south owned slaves IIRC. In Mississippi & South Carolina it was over 45%.

the north wasn't fighting to free the slaves

Not even close to that many

Also
>households

But they planned to free the slaves. Economic and political incentives for keeping the Union together don't diminish that part of the agenda or the valour of soldiers that believed in the abolishionist cause. So if you opposed slavery they were the ones to cheer for.

>So if you opposed slavery they were the ones to cheer for.
You don't cheer for people who come to where you live with arms uninvited. No matter the agenda.

civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

Using households gives a more accurate picture of slaveowning. Women & children, while technically not being slave owners themselves, benefited from the slaves that their husbands & fathers owned.

Unless the curriculum has changed the soldiers were never criticized. I mean we learned that the vast majority didn't own slaves and would probably didn't belive they were fighting for slavery.
Also, we did go into the hipocrasy of the founding fathers not only with slavery but with woman and poor people. Most people forget that if you were poor at the founding of the Republic you couldn't vote.

If you were one of the people they were going to free of course they would've cheered. And the south shot first - that's an invitation to war if there ever was one.

The loyalists freed the slaves during the Revolutionary war. In fact 1/3rd of New York City households owned slaves prior to the war, but they were freed during the british occupation. The Declaration itself complained about the King exciting slave insurrections in the colonies. So obviously, if you opposed slavery the Brits were the ones to cheer for.

>but muh northern abolitionists

they didn't free their slaves after the war, but sold them to the south for profit. People back then didn't hate slavery because they cared for black people, but because they saw it as hurting civic society.

>the founding fathers were hypocrites

they're only hypocrites if you take their writings out of context and apply your own world view on them. Go read some Hobbes and Locke to understand their reasoning, fucking Locke even wrote his own essay condoning slavery.

Are you implying I'd support the American revolutionaires ideologically? Because I wouldn't.

if they were specifically fighting to own slaves why would they not just accept the corwin amendment? The union offered to add slavery to the fucking constitution if they stayed. The South was obviously pro-slavery but to act like they were willing to go to war over something that wasn't even being threatened that strongly it silly. Andrew Jackson called it 30 years prior after the nullification crisis.

>On May 1, 1833 Jackson wrote, "the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."

The Founding Fathers were racist and all, yes, but that's kinda to be expected. They weren't hypocrites for signing a document proclaiming "All men are created equal" while simultaneously holding slaves. Rather, they were pragmatists, searching for a peaceful way to end slavery. The 3/5 clause was an attempt by the Founding Fathers to limit the power of the South in Congress, for example.

>abolition act of 1733
>act of 1733
>1733

well the thread was comparing the two and your argument was that the confederates were the bad guys because they were on the side of slavery. By that definition the Patriots would also qualify as the bad guys. So I'm implying that OP is right that the whitewashing of the founding fathers and demonization of the confederates in modern american academia is hypocritical.

huh? the union caused the first causality in the war.

>founding fathers were pragmatist abolitionists meme

They did try to establish long-term means to peacefully end slavery.

how?

>The date changed what was right haha xD